Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
55,419
17,772



nfl.png
The National Football League will launch a digital streaming network called NFL Now this summer, ahead of the 2014 NFL season.

The network will include game highlights and videos sourced from the NFL's 32 teams, NFL Network, NFL.com and NFL Films, in addition to a vault of NFL videos. Live team press conferences will be available, as well. There will also be a paid subscription service that will provide premium content, though details and pricing have yet to be determined.
The new network will mix game highlights, live streams of press conferences, originally produced content from the league and its 32 teams, and content already being produced for the NFL cable network and NFL.com. Users will be able to tailor the stream of content to their interests, following their favorite teams and players. The league claims that no two fans will have the exact same NFL Now channel.
The service will be available on U.S. mobile devices for Verizon Wireless customers because of that company's partnership with the NFL, including the iPhone and iPad, while international customers will get the service free around the world. It is also a possible candidate for the Apple TV, which as seen a number of new content channels in recent months.

More details on the channel will be released later this year.

The NFL's existing iOS app includes scores, team alerts, NFL.com fantasy football and more, with Verizon customers able to upgrade to premium features including streaming the NFL RedZone channel and all NFL games on Thursday, Sunday and Monday Nights. [Direct Link]

Article Link: 'NFL Now' Streaming Video Service Launching Ahead of 2014 NFL Season
 

ovrlrd

macrumors 65816
Aug 29, 2009
1,320
1
Oh the joys of an outdated distribution model.

The old technology and revenue model used by NFL broadcasters continues to maintain their stranglehold on the great american pastime.

The NFL probably won't have a subscription model for watching games anytime in the next 5-7 years. Meanwhile MLB and other sports leagues are able to do this just fine, with the exception of maybe blacking out local games.

So yeah, don't waste your money on this.
 

viperGTS

macrumors 68000
Nov 15, 2010
1,560
900
I hate how this is Verizon only. What is this, 2006? When carrier-specific services like this were still a thing?
 

ovrlrd

macrumors 65816
Aug 29, 2009
1,320
1
I hate how this is Verizon only. What is this, 2006? When carrier-specific services like this were still a thing?

No this is 2014, where due to the end of net neutrality, we will have even more of this nonsense.
 

simon48

macrumors 65816
Sep 1, 2010
1,315
88
Why not charge $99 a year and stream all the games live online, they'll make millions? Oh, wait cable companies, you got to love money keeping us in the 90s.
 

KeepCalmPeople

macrumors 65816
Sep 5, 2012
1,313
369
San Francisco Bay Area, California
Until the NFL can re-negotiate its contracts with the TV networks, we're not going to see live games anytime soon. Those TV Networks pay of millions of $ for the rights to broadcast the live games - and in turn those TV networks are under contract with cable and satellite TV companies that prevent them from streaming this kind of content online.
 

simon48

macrumors 65816
Sep 1, 2010
1,315
88
Until the NFL can re-negotiate its contracts with the TV networks, we're not going to see live games anytime soon. Those TV Networks pay of millions of $ for the rights to broadcast the live games - and in turn those TV networks are under contract with cable and satellite TV companies that prevent them from streaming this kind of content online.

Well, that's not true across-the-board, NBC streams all of their NFL games for free online. CBS streamed their playoff games this year for free online also. And Fox is streaming the Super Bowl for free online.
 

Lymf

macrumors newbie
Jan 27, 2014
24
1
Brussels
Oh the joys of an outdated distribution model.

The old technology and revenue model used by NFL broadcasters continues to maintain their stranglehold on the great american pastime.

The NFL probably won't have a subscription model for watching games anytime in the next 5-7 years. Meanwhile MLB and other sports leagues are able to do this just fine, with the exception of maybe blacking out local games.

So yeah, don't waste your money on this.

Don't they have the NFL Game Pass? I mean, they do. I'm using it in Belgium since ESPN America decided not to broadcast the games anymore...

----------

Why not charge $99 a year and stream all the games live online, they'll make millions? Oh, wait cable companies, you got to love money keeping us in the 90s.

It's called NFL Game Pass.
 

mlpsponzischeme

macrumors regular
Jun 16, 2009
121
25
You hit the nail on the head. They are losing out on major revenue. Morons.

Oh the joys of an outdated distribution model.

The old technology and revenue model used by NFL broadcasters continues to maintain their stranglehold on the great american pastime.

The NFL probably won't have a subscription model for watching games anytime in the next 5-7 years. Meanwhile MLB and other sports leagues are able to do this just fine, with the exception of maybe blacking out local games.

So yeah, don't waste your money on this.
 

69Mustang

macrumors 604
Jan 7, 2014
7,874
15,011
In between a rock and a hard place
Millions?? Ha!

Until the NFL can re-negotiate its contracts with the TV networks, we're not going to see live games anytime soon. Those TV Networks pay of millions of $ for the rights to broadcast the live games - and in turn those TV networks are under contract with cable and satellite TV companies that prevent them from streaming this kind of content online.

For the NFL alone CBS, NBC, Fox, and ESPN paid approximately $42 billion for the broadcast rights. That's guaranteed money. Direct TV paid the LA Dodgers approx $8 billion for their DodgersNetwork broadcast right. That's just one team. Why would any of the sports properties look away from that type of money to look at the piecemeal subscription model many others have posted on this topic?

If the trend continues, when the NFL re-negotiates that contract they will only be paid more. We've been spoiled by the iOS ecosystem of buy what you want. I can't see how adopting that over the current system benefits the NFL. Adding it to what they already do, maybe. Replacing it with basically a-la-carte? I don't see it.
 

simon48

macrumors 65816
Sep 1, 2010
1,315
88
Don't they have the NFL Game Pass? I mean, they do. I'm using it in Belgium since ESPN America decided not to broadcast the games anymore...

----------



It's called NFL Game Pass.

NFL Game Pass is not available in the US.
 

jlgolson

Contributing Editor
Jun 2, 2011
379
4
Durango, CO
Why not charge $99 a year and stream all the games live online, they'll make millions? Oh, wait cable companies, you got to love money keeping us in the 90s.
Because they don't want millions. They want billions.

Verizon is paying $1 billion for the rights to stream games on mobile. DirecTV is paying billions for NFL Sunday Ticket.

The amount of money that they would make offering streams is minuscule compared to those gigantic deals.
 

Deelron

macrumors regular
Jan 30, 2009
235
113
You hit the nail on the head. They are losing out on major revenue. Morons.

I sincerely doubt that. The NFL has the infrastructure and capability, it simply chooses not to offer the product because the deal(s) they get from the broadcast companies and Direct TV (exclusivity to watch Sunday early and late games live over the internet with Sunday Ticket Max @ $1 billion a year annually) are valued more then what individual subscribers would produce.

I really doubt that the revenue that they're missing out from not offering Game Pass to people inside the US and Mexico would offset the exclusive value that Direct TV pays for being the only provider of every Sunday early and late game, and I say this as someone a subscriber of MLB's excellent service.
 

TrentS

macrumors 6502
Sep 24, 2011
491
238
Overland Park, Kansas
Plus Plus!!

I sincerely doubt that. The NFL has the infrastructure and capability, it simply chooses not to offer the product because the deal(s) they get from the broadcast companies and Direct TV (exclusivity to watch Sunday early and late games live over the internet with Sunday Ticket Max @ $1 billion a year annually) are valued more then what individual subscribers would produce.

I really doubt that the revenue that they're missing out from not offering Game Pass to people inside the US and Mexico would offset the exclusive value that Direct TV pays for being the only provider of every Sunday early and late game, and I say this as someone a subscriber of MLB's excellent service.

But.... If they streamed live games thru mobile devices and charged $9.99 or more a year per customer to do so, all the while running the same ad content as you would see on your free FOX, ESPN, CBS channels, it would be EXTRA money that they are not generating now.

:D :D :D :D
 
Last edited:

slu

macrumors 68000
Sep 15, 2004
1,636
107
Buffalo
Serious question: has anyone in the entire history of mankind ever selected Verizon or kept Verizon because of NFL exclusivity? I like football just as much as the next guy, but access to the NFL apps are like 300th on the list of things I worry about when selecting a carrier.

It must work or Verizon wouldn't pay, I guess.
 

Bill Killer

macrumors 6502
Dec 29, 2011
494
98
Why not charge $99 a year and stream all the games live online, they'll make millions? Oh, wait cable companies, you got to love money keeping us in the 90s.

They may make millions, but they care more about billions. The NFL gets $1 billion yearly from each provider willing to carry Sunday Ticket.
 

apps1991

macrumors member
Jan 10, 2012
41
24
UFC has Fight Pass, WWE has WWE Network, NFL introduces NFL Now, it's the hot new thing
 

e-coli

macrumors 68000
Jul 27, 2002
1,873
848
No live games? Yeah no thanks. I'll just get my games via antenna for free.

I'm really souring on the NFL.
 

Lord Hamsa

macrumors 6502a
Jul 16, 2013
672
553
But.... If they streamed live games thru mobile devices and charged $9.99 or more a year per customer to do so, all the while running the same ad content as you would see on your free FOX, ESPN, CBS channels, it would be EXTRA money that they are not generating now.

:D :D :D :D

And that may very well be where they go in the future, but their existing contracts, especially the one with DirecTV, prohibit them from doing so now. Maybe after next season (DTV contract expires after 2014 season), which may mean that this app might have a secondary purpose of getting the infrastructure in place and field tested before a launch of this type of service in the US for the 2015 season.
 

JAT

macrumors 603
Dec 31, 2001
6,473
124
Mpls, MN
Serious question: has anyone in the entire history of mankind ever selected Verizon or kept Verizon because of NFL exclusivity? I like football just as much as the next guy, but access to the NFL apps are like 300th on the list of things I worry about when selecting a carrier.

It must work or Verizon wouldn't pay, I guess.

People have picked DirecTV because of NFLST. Don't know about VZW.
 

Chupa Chupa

macrumors G5
Jul 16, 2002
14,834
7,395
Why not charge $99 a year and stream all the games live online, they'll make millions? Oh, wait cable companies, you got to love money keeping us in the 90s.

True, but, it would be way more than $99 year if the NFL wants to make the $700M a season it gets from DTV plus the $210M it gets from Verizon. Right now DTV charges $400 for Live view TV + online streaming of all Sunday games and loses money at that price. So guessing if the NFL opened it up to everyone, not just DTV customers, at best you cut the price 25% to remain profitable. BUT I'm also guessing NFL is going to want north of $1B for the next contract starting in 2016, so $400 is probably what the NFL would have to charge if it wanted to go it alone.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.